“[T]he old fantastical Duke of dark corners”: Vincentio’s Shadows in William Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure
p. 59-71
Texte intégral
1 Measure for Measure has suffered from a shadowy reputation almost ever since its first official performance before the court of King James I on St Stephen’s Day, 16041. This is essentially because critical reception seems unable to come to terms with its ambiguous tragi-comic nature, the “peculiar tone and technique of the play2” and its inconclusive ending; as the Duke’s plot-closing marriage proposal to Isabella and the other characters’questions ultimately remain unanswered:
Whereto if you’ll a willing ear incline,
What’s mine is yours, and what is yours is mine,
So, bring us to our palace, where we’ ll show
What’s yet behind that’s meet you all should know3.
Vincentio’s shadowy last words inevitably provoke the question of what is “behind” the character of Duke in the play. Indeed, if the “tale’s popularity was due to its almost Solomonic merit as an object lesson in the workings of true justice4” what will be of interest to us here is the shady Realpolitik5 behind the “ruler’s dual sentence6”.
2Lucio’s description of Vincentio provides clues with which to begin the analysis. The familiar Shakespearean epithet “old,” signifies “dating far back into the past […] who nourishes thee7,” which suggests a recognizable and established order as personified by the Duke, or sovereign8, of Vienna and is what could be expected when making reference to the respected holder of a hereditary title of nobility. However, and in contrast to the first part of his portrayal, Lucio then uses the term “fantastical9,” which contradicts reassuring first impressions. Furthermore, the rest of the sentence conjures up the disturbing idea of authority in the hands of an obscure being operating in “dark corners10”. In this respect, it can be said that Lucio’s11 antithetical depiction of Vincentio throws light on the multifaceted nature of the character and even hints at the fact that the play itself may be more complex than it first appears. Indeed, “Shakespeare’s Duke, […] was no mere amalgam of the qualities of [the rather static figure of Cinthio’s Emperor] Maximian and Severus12” and the whole fiction turns out to be an important development on the traditional dual between a righteous ruler and a corrupt magistrate to be found in the source material. This literary enhancement is what will be of interest to us here because, contrary to the perfect balance suggested by the play’s title, it is impossible to adopt a Manichean approach to a work where fiction is layered rather than juxtaposed. So, it is our task to show how Shakespeare allows spectators to see through the different shadowy layers – because the notion signifies only comparative darkness13 – and how light and dark are to be apprehended as joint, not separate, entities.
3The purpose of this paper is thus to look at how Shakespeare plays “shadow games” in Measure for Measure and how the different shades of darkness gradually fade away to reveal the light. To begin with, we will examine how Vincentio is moved out of the limelight after his decision to be shadowed, or followed, by Angelo, who appears, at first, to be a rigorous representative of a new order, in stark contrast to the Duke’s old order leniency. However, as will be seen, the new order is shown to be just as perfectible as the former one. Next, after the Duke is moved back into the half-light, the issue of how he out-shadows his successor to transform potential tragedy into comedy will be debated. Finally, the complex question of Shakespeare’s staging of the action will be brought to light, before concluding with an assessment of the politics which shadow the playwright’s fiction.
“I love the people,/But do not like to stage me to their eyes” (1.1. 67-68) into the shadows
4It is no secret that kings are public figures:
I love the people,
But do not like to stage me to their eyes :
Though it do well, I do not relish well
Their loud applause and Aves vehement ;
Nor do I think the man of safe discretion
That does affect it14.
J. W. Lever notes that Vincentio’s comments on the popularity stemming from his influent position in society reflect those of the ruling monarch at the time of writing:
“For kings being publike persons, by reason of their office and authoritie, are as it were set (as it was sayd of old) upon a public stage, in the sight of all the people15.”
Indeed, James I was a reluctant figurehead and manifested a disdainful attitude to contact with “crowds and publicity16”. This uncomfortable reception of public gaze is also, at first glance, what pushes Vincentio to retire and become an initially silent observer of affairs. These are in a sorry state, essentially because of what Claudio terms as “too much liberty17”. Even the Duke himself admits that he has “let slip” the “strict statues and most biting laws18” that already exist, and should have been implemented, to regulate society. So, although not personally responsible for the disorder of his duchy, the Duke of Vienna can be said to have sinned by omission – because he is guilty of giving his subjects too much leeway. Moreover, his permissive approach towards ducal management is unwittingly underlined by one of his own counsellors, Escalus, when speaking to the Duke (or rather to his alter ego, friar Lodowick):
Duke. – What pleasure was he given to?
Escalus. – Rather rejoicing to see another merry than merry at anything which professed to make him rejoice.
A gentleman of all temperance19.
Shakespeare’s point is that Vincentio’s self control is not extended to others, and the Duke’s complacently passive gaze on his subjects’merrymaking has reversed the traditional order of society because misrule has overtaken regulation. So, despite the reverential tone, Escalus’language gives the lie to Vincentio’s capacities as a head of state: on the contrary, it emphasises his initial laissez faire approach to government. Furthermore, the playwright’s use of anadiplosis in the extract – his linking of the two sentences by the same word, here “merry,” which should give an appearance of rationale to Escalus’depiction of Vincentio as a reliable sovereign – ironically reinforces the impression of lax Viennese rule. Thus, the Duke’s delegation of power to Angelo at the beginning of the action can be regarded, not as an arbitrary decision, but as a choice brought about by an inner acknowledgement of his own inefficient state management. Put another way, Vincentio, whose name ironically signifies “winner” or “conqueror,” can be said to be under the shadow of a defeat, one of failed authority, from the very outset of the play.
5Notwithstanding his rather perilous position as a ruler, Vincentio persists in maintaining the impression of being in command throughout the action. Indeed, the play opens with his apparently well-prepared choice to relinquish his power, and his responsibilities, to Angelo:
We have with special soul
Elected him our absence to supply ;
Lent him our terror, drest him with our love,
And given his deputation all the organs of our own power20.
Once again though, Shakespeare’s use of language contradicts apparent purpose. For example the term “our terror,” though “a worthy attribute of royalty21,” seems inappropriately attributed to a Duke prone to “rejoicing to see another merry”. Indeed, the transition from “Lent” to “given” implies that the Duke is ready to totally surrender his political legitimacy–in other words, the body and “soul,” which constitute his superiority as a ruler. In this respect, Vincentio’s outward decision to go in secret amongst his people, to discover abuses and right wrongs, is a reflection of the dark private nature of a ruler who is at the very origin of the misdemeanours he now seems intent upon correcting. This first transgression22 will entail another crossing over – into the darkness – as Vincentio becomes a shadow of his former self and ostensibly delegates his power to Angelo.
Following in Vincentio’s footsteps
6In the light of the Duke’s shadiness, and in next scene, audiences are made aware that Angelo’s task is not going to be an easy one. Indeed, Lucio’s irreverent chatter with “[two other Gentlemen]” in “[A public place]23” elucidates the fact that disorder, both internal and external24, is common knowledge:
Lucio. – If the Duke, with other Dukes, come not to composition with the King of Hungary, why then all the Dukes fall upon the king.
I Gent. – Why, ‘twas a commandment to command the captain and all the rest from their functions; they put forth to steal. […] thou art good velvet; thou’rt a three-piled piece, I warrant thee; I had as life be a list of English kersey; as be piled, as thou art pilled, for a French velvet25.
In his attempt to control the chaos, young Angelo’s puritanical command – a plausible divergent reaction to “old” Vincentio’s liberalism – leads to the absurd situation of Claudio’s arrest and death sentence26 for “possession of Julietta’s bed27”. Almost at once, and in a parallel to Angelo’s self-righteous intolerance, audiences see how the Duke’s apparent guilty conscience compels him to repent–whilst concealed under the cowl of a Catholic friar, an appropriate disguise with regards to his forthwith penitent attitude:
I do fear, too dreadful.
Sith ‘twas my fault to give the people scope,
‘Twould be my tyranny to strike and gall them
For what I bid them do: for we bid this done,
When evil deeds have their permissive pass,
And not the punishment28.
Here, the Duke’s use of alliteration on d, p and t, suggests a choking, almost strangled effect, as if his apparently sincere avowal of faulty statesmanship were a particularly difficult and awesome experience. This may be because of his mismanagement of society, as highlighted by the paronomasia which links “we,” “evil” and “deeds”. Seemingly unable to bear the brunt of accusations alone, the Duke’s inclusive “we” suggests that society should share his responsibility, which hints at hypocrisy. To underline this, the confession culminates in the juxtaposition of “permissive” and “punishment,” an effective oxymoron to introduce the idea of the transition from tolerance to uncompromising authority – as personified by Angelo. In this way, the delegate can be seen as a symbol of harsh divine retribution – in contrast to the love of God which is now symbolised by the remorseful (and still accommodating) Duke in disguise. However, as excessive use of wordplay is often Shakespeare’s way of letting spectators see behind the scenes, Vincentio’s cleverly constructed remorse can be regarded as a mere rhetorical device to obscure real meaning. Indeed, Lucio’s remark later in the play: “Cucullus non facit monachum: honest in nothing but his clothes29” would seem to corroborate this observation, especially as this extract shows some of the first words spoken by the Duke after he has donned his disguise as a monk.
7Vincentio has seemingly “nourished” Angelo to become his successor whilst keeping him in the dark concerning some of the details of his own doubtful statesmanship. This fictional fostering recalls the words written by James I in his “gift30” to his son and heir, Henry Duke of Rothesay, when the boy was a mere five years old: “I am no hypocrite, follow my footsteppes, and your owne present education therein31.” In a similar fashion, the youthful Angelo can also be said to have followed in the Duke’s “footsteppes”. This is because, the younger man has been educated within the hypocritical framework of a lawless society that is ironically structured by laws that should be known to all but which are respected by none. Angelo’s divergent response to the Duke’s passivity – an emotional rather than analytical reaction to his shadowy upbringing – will logically lead to his fall from grace as his elder’s “shadow minister”. All in all, even before Vincentio’s dramatic re-emergence (3.1.152), it can be said that the deputy has been overshadowed by the Duke. In other words, Angelo is reduced to a distorted mirror image, or dramatic foil, with which Vincentio is able to glorify his own reputation as a ruler.
“[Advancing]” (3.1. 152): The Duke’s return from darkness
8Initially characterised by his inaction, Vincentio is finally compelled to take hold of the reins of society when they are thrust back into his hands in act 3. This comes after Angelo’s recognition of his own failings before God and the audience: “Heaven in my mouth,/As if I did but only chew His name32.” Yet Angelo’s self-acknowledged flaws, unlike the Duke’s, do nothing to change his course of action. On the contrary, they comfort his tyrannical decision to put Claudio, his doppelgänger33, to death in an attempt to free himself from his own guilty conscience. However, in a play where most of the action takes place inside, often in prison or courtrooms, there can be no escape. This is because Shakespeare continually places the characters before the mirror of their own shortcomings:
Angelo. – We are all frail.
Isabella. – Else let my brother die,
If not a feodary but only he
Owe and succeed thy weakness.
Angelo. – Nay, women are frail too.
Isabella. – Ay, as the glasses where they view themselves,
Which are as easy broke as they make forms,
Women? – Help, heaven! Men their creation mar
In profiting by them34.
As Vincentio before him, Angelo tries to generalise weakness: “We are all frail. […] women are frail too” in an attempt to include others as partners in crime35. Yet Angelo fails miserably in his enterprise because he is an active participant (unlike Vincentio, who was a passive observer) in the crime of seduction that he is trying to force Isabella to become accomplice to. However, when she refuses to yield and become “a feodary” to his crimes, he will not admit his mistake because his involvement means that he does not possess the objectivity required to make a rational decision. So it can be said that Angelo’s major failure as a decision taker is his own unyieldingness. In other words, he is unable to see that his authority should be meted out in an equitable manner because he has himself become a blinkered victim of his own emotions. As has been seen, this is not the case of the Duke, whose detached discernment has given him a clear-headed flair for opportunity.
9Logically, in a play where the audience is constantly forced to observe how the characters seem to be perpetually looking at themselves and watching each other36, spectators now see the Duke make the most of Isabella’s eye witness account of Angelo’s blind tyranny to return centre stage:
Claudio. – O heavens, it cannot be!
Isabella. – Yes, he would give’t thee, from this rank offence,
So to offend him still. This night’s the time
That I should do what I abhor to name ;
Or else thou diest tomorrow37.
Indeed, Angelo’s upstage totalitarianism is what allows the Duke to reinforce his position as a backstage ruler. Vincentio’s suggestion that Mariana be a bed substitute for Isabella – a proposition that would probably have been totally objectionable in former circumstances – now becomes plausible in the wake of the Duke’s substitute’s autocracy. The tyranny of desire thus provides a counterpart to that of oppression and will now serve the Duke’s purpose within a new paradigm of virtuous justice. Indeed, it is correction rather than repentance or reckoning which is now the priority for Vincentio as he emerges into the half light (he is still in disguise as friar Lodowick) to chastise Angelo. Shakespeare thus takes the Duke from being watched, to watching his own shadow and pragmatically manipulating the consequences of an injustice that he should partly be held responsible for himself. Put differently, Vincentio becomes a prompt in the darkness in order to undermine Angelo’s defiantly narrow-minded authority–and to reassert his own power.
Authority out-shadowed
10Unburdened by “kinship38,” Vincentio is free to go about the business of “kingship”. Indeed, having rejected his stand-in son and heir, Shakespeare now shows spectators how the Duke is able to work out the politics of compromise, or medio stat vitus39, from the inside – something which would have been impossible had he publicly admitted his own failings as a ruler. Thus, the playwright, whilst maintaining all the dramatic action in and around Vienna, metaphorically exiles the Duke from the unstable microcosm of his duchy – by allowing him to operate within the larger framework of the macrocosm under the reassuring disguise of the clergy. This distancing effect is not without its flipside however, as it also allows for the irreverent comedy that the Duke becomes a target of himself.
11Vincentio is undoubtedly the main protagonist of the happy end that replaces the near tragedy. This is because, in the second “part” of the play, he stage manages a solution that “exalts the Christian ideal of forgiveness at the expense of justice40,” and mitigates the “eye for eye” precepts of The Sermon on the Mount41. Indeed, the Duke’s passive leniency is gradually transformed into the proactive compassion that saves Claudio and Angelo from the executioner’s axe:
An Angelo for Claudio, death for death.
Haste still pays haste, and leisure answers leisure;
Like doth quit like, and Measure still for Measure42.
Spectators may be tempted to come to the conclusion that Vincentio’s management of the last scenes of the play is also a convenient way of avoiding his own accountability. However, Shakespeare’s staging of the Duke’s encounters with Lucio frustrate this impression of shady old order authority getting away free. Apart from the title quote, Lucio’s comic irreverence in the Duke’s presence happens upon a sufficiently large number of occasions for audiences to realise that the playwright is not prepared to give Vincentio the last laugh. Indeed, the resonance of the Duke’s comments regarding the reversal of traditional authoritative values at the beginning of the play43 echoes throughout the action. This comes to a comic climax during the exchange between the Duke and Lucio (3.2. 87-95), mainly due to the embedded effect, or mise en abyme, which operates here:
“It was a mad, fantastical trick of him to steal from the state and usurp the beggary he was never born to. Lord Angelo Dukes it well in his absence; he puts transgression to’t. […] A little more lenity to lechery would do no harm in him. Something too crabbed that way friar44.”
“A very superficial, ignorant unweighing fellow45.”
12The pun on the word “Duke” epitomises the “play within a play” conceit46 which creates a distancing effect and allows for some whole-hearted laughter at Vincentio’s expense. Moreover, the leitmotif of detached authority (personified here by the use of the anonymous title “Duke”) – when coupled with the use of third person singular and the fact that Lucio is unaware that he is speaking about the Duke to the Duke – accentuates the disembodied effect. Thus, contrivance allocates the theatrical space needed for Lucio’s comic parody; as he is prompted into some plain speech about self and state disorder. In this way, the comedy makes it clear that the Duke’s physical isolation from his population has provoked a mental estrangement which almost leads to the tragedy of Isabella’s seduction, Claudio’s execution, Juliet becoming a widow and their child an orphan. In other words, Shakespeare’s theatrical tricks help the audience see through the shadows by bringing Vincentio’s faulty human nature and obscure ducal management under the spotlight. What was latent in the tragedy becomes blatant in the comedy as Lucio’s impertinent plain speech leads to the vocal expiation essential for comic regeneration. It may be because of this too that Shakespeare can let Isabella leave the stage in silence at the end of the play – to show that, henceforward, because his authority has been out shadowed, Vincentio may no longer be allowed the last word.
From “Rex” to text stage craft placed under the spotlight
13By making it clear that the anthropomorphic deity is the dramatist, not the Duke, Shakespeare also underlines the fictional nature of the play. However, the changes in dramatic technique to turn tragedy into comedy also imply the risk of overstating the tricks of the trade for the sake of the tricks “by which Mariana is substituted for Isabella in the assignation with Angelo47” and Barnadine’s (4.2. 206), then Ragozine’s (4.3. 91) head is substituted for that of Claudio. Indeed, the question of whether aesthetics overpowers ethics–or whether stage business and character manipulation would seem to be more a case of Shakespeare’s than Vincentio’s “craft against vice”–must be addressed, especially in a play where the Duke often seems little more than the dramatist’s means to a happy end for the plot.
14To highlight the play’s artificial nature, critics have often underlined the fact that the abundant use of human emotion in the first part of the action48 is replaced by an almost total “disregard of human feelings throughout the greater part of the final scene49”. Moreover, and if moral issues are still intact, they remain hidden in the wings at the play’s close as “the structure of the [last] scene; in its dependence on mere dramatic contrivance and manipulation, is such that until near the end human reactions […] would have been out of place50”. In much the same way, J. W. Lever notes that the Duke “undergoes no inner development of character and achieves no added self-knowledge51”.
15On the other hand, if it can be postulated that characters and plot “mean” nothing it is essentially because Shakespeare’s world is pure invention or a “fantastical” creation of his imagination and, when assessing Measure for Measure, we need to approach the fiction from another angle than that of a “real” world. Moreover, we can regard the exaggerated artifice, apart from being a self conscious statement on Shakespeare’s skills as a dramatist, as one which provides an eloquent statement on the theatrum mundi of society as a whole. In this respect, the illusory world of theatre becomes an efficient mirror to expose and appraise the sum of humanity and its ongoing search for “self-knowledge, the essential quest in Measure for Measure, [and which] was the crowning achievement of the last plays52”.
16The dystopia53 of Measure for Measure is then perhaps one of Shakespeare’s plays where the trope of “the world as a stage” is best exemplified. This is essentially because the playwright’s artistry – which elucidates the fact that the characters are playing out roles that they have not themselves invented – means that he can highlight our powerlessness to command our own destinies. Having broken the mirror of any lasting illusion of authority, Shakespeare can delight in his stagecraft – whilst we delight in the infinite possibilities for innovation that his drama provides. Put another way, Shakespeare insists we watch as he sheds the cloak of a dissolving old world order to embrace a “brave new world54” of theatrical renewal.
Conclusion
17The duplicitous Duke is thus, ironically, Shakespeare’s means to gradually show through the shadows of his drama into the light. From an obscure ineffectual ruler he becomes an upfront and competent legislator – even if he ultimately remains a flawed individual and powerless to compel Isabella to break her silence at the end of the play. All in all, it is as if we have been let backstage and shown all the theatrical tricks behind the façade of Vincentio’s shadowy performance. He will never again appear as a political magician who is able to ensure long-lasting control by a simple sleight of hand, but nonetheless remains a pragmatic ruler who has enough “benevolent vigilance55” to take into account actions and reactions when making decisions in order to preserve chastity, save lives – and guarantee the continuance of his own authority. In this way, the Duke’s shadowy statesmanship recalls that of another, more overtly scheming, Prince:
“Career politicians needed to be mindful and tactical in all that they said and did. The Prince basically gave license to underhand dealing, economy of truth, treachery and spuriousness as part of the political game56.”
Indeed, in Machiavelli’s 16th century work, a “Count Lodowick” appears in Chapter three57 and a rough plot outline for the play as a whole is sketched in Chapter Seven58, even though Vincentio proves to be more compassionate than his real-life counterpart. Hence, the play’s conclusion can be seen as one where spectators are drawn to reflect upon the fact that mere survival constantly calls for compromise, or the medio stat vitus of Vincentio’s, and James’, politics:
“Power rests on maintaining effective communications and relationships between different parties. […] Moreover, the truth is that all of humanity is Machiavellian to one extent of another and that it is a necessity to have some Machiavellian traits in order to survive in society. If individuals were to speak their minds and do exactly as they pleased than anarchy would likely reign and chaos ensue […] we all benefit from the relative respect and power that comes from being good at fitting in and utilizing our social skills59.”
18Shakespeare’s final point is then life as an ongoing process – where understanding others comes before understanding ourselves. So, Vincentio, the Duke of “dark corners,” is not such a “fantastical” being after all – because his adaptability and ability to transform his own passivity into a proactive and common sense approach to state management is none other than an efficient response to “the discreditable truth about humanity60”. In other words, Measure for Measure can be regarded as a treatise on the “frailty and crossness of our nature61” and about how we need to adopt coping strategies in order to avoid death and desolation. In this, the character of the Duke, as well as the play as a whole, do not provide a gloomy discourse on the statics of a corrupt civilisation but rather a wry commentary on the dynamics of human capacity for endurance and regeneration62 amidst the chaos of mismanagement – both of ourselves and of others.
Notes de bas de page
1See J. W. Lever’s comments on the disparaging terms applied to Shakespeare’s work, such as “problem play” which “seems to have been first applied by Boas, in Shakespeare’s Predecessors, in 1896,” Shakespeare William, Measure for Measure, J. W. Lever (ed.), London, Arden Shakespeare (Cengage Learning), 1965; 2008, introduction, p. lvi.
2Shakespeare William, Measure for Measure, Alfred Harbage (ed.), London, Penguin books Ltd, (The Complete Pelican Shakespeare), “The Comedies and the Romances,” 1981, introduction (by R. C. Bald), p. 357.
3Shakespeare William, Measure for Measure, J. W. Lever (ed.), op. cit., (5.1. 535-536). All the quotes from the play are from this edition. The play’s conclusion is famously ambiguous, or, as Anny Crunelle-Vanrigh puts it: “Know est incidemment le dernier mot de la pièce, confirmant l’aporie où elle demeure,” Mesure pour Mesure, traduction nouvelle de Jean-Michel Déprats, Analyse, documents et notes de Anny Crunelle-Vanrigh, Paris, Editions théâtrales, 2001, notes, p. 172-173.
4Shakespeare William, Measure for Measure, J. W. Lever (ed.), op. cit., introduction, p. xxxvii.
5“In the Historia Augusta, attributed to Lampridius, and in Guervara’s Décadas de las vidas de los x. Cesares (1539), the Roman emperor Alexander Severus was presented as a paragon of rulers. Determined to stamp out vice and corruption, he insisted on upright judges, appointed two Censors to investigate abuses in Rome […] Severus’devious methods and sensational exposures of wrongdoings were dwelt on. […] Georges Whetstone’s A Mirror for Magistrates of Cyties (1584), was even more explicit on the contemporary relevance of Severus’methods […] The laws, he declared, were no more than ‘written threteninfes’; […] There was a need for ‘visible lightes in obscure Corners’,” ibid., introduction, p. xliv-xlv.
6Ibid., introduction, p. xxxvii.
7“old […] that has lived long, dating far back into the past […] as a familiar epithet XVI (Sh.),” The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, C. T. Onions (ed.), Hong Kong, Oxford University Press, 1966, p. 625.
8“duke […] sovereign, prince, ruler of a duchy XII,” ibid., p. 293.
9“fantastic […] extravagantly fanciful XVI,” ibid., p. 344.
10“Lucio means ‘keeper of secret assignations’, which he assumes to be the Duke’s unofficial occupation. But the phrase had unconscious irony; the Duke visits obscure places in order to learn the state of his people after the manner of Severus,” Shakespeare William, Measure for Measure, J. W. Lever (ed.), op. cit., footnote, p. 119.
11Fittingly this illuminating description is pronounced by a diabolical character, the ostensibly cynical “Lucifer” of the play. However, the name signifies both “Morning star [and] Satan” and has thus both negative and positive connotations. The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, C. T. Onions (ed.), op. cit., p. 539.
12Shakespeare William, Measure for Measure, J. W. Lever (ed.), op. cit., introduction, p. xlv.
13“shadow […] comparative darkness; image cast by a body intercepting light,” The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, op. cit., p. 815.
14(1.1. 67-72).
15James I, King of England, Basilikon Doron, Or His Maiesties instructions to his dearest sonne, Henrie the prince (1603), London “According to the copie printed at Edenburgh, 1603,” Early English Books Online, 2010, To the Reader, p. 2.
16J. W. Lever notes that James’above comments reflect a long tradition of monarchs shying away from public gaze. Indeed, James’words are a reiteration of Elisabeth I’s statements before Parliament in 1586 on the same subject: “We princes, I tel you, are set on stages, in the sight and wiewe of all the world,” J. W. Lever, op. cit., footnote, p. 8.
17(1.2. 117).
18(1.3. 19).
19(3.2. 228-230).
20(1.1. 17-21).
21Shakespeare William, Measure for Measure, op. cit., footnote, p. 5.
22“transgression […] go beyond the bounds prescribed by law,” The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, C. T. Onions (ed.), op. cit., p. 936.
23(1.2.).
24Historical influences revolved around “James I’s ideas on government […] the continuance of the war with Spain; the plague in London; the treason trials and executions in Winchester [… and] the pulling down of houses and rooms in the suburbs of London as a precaution against the spread of the plague by ‘dissolute and idle persons’. [… which] bore heavily upon the numerous brothels and gaming houses which proliferated on the outskirts of the city,” Shakespeare William, Measure for Measure, op. cit., introduction, p. xxxi-xxxii.
25(1.2. 1-33).
26The ruling was especially harsh as the two lovers were already married in a secular sense: “The common law contract of sponsalia de preasenti, a mutual recognition as husband an wife in the presence of witnesses, was still valid in England,” Shakespeare William, Measure for Measure, op. cit., footnote p. 16.
27(1.2. 135).
28(1.3. 34-39).
29(5.1. 261). The translation of the Latin is: “A holie Hood, makes not a Frier deoute,” footnote, Shakespeare William, Measure for Measure, J. W. Lever (ed.), op. cit., p. 137. Shakespeare makes it clear here that identity is not necessarily synonymous with personality.
30Basilikon Doron means “royal gift” in Greek.
31James I, King of England, Basilikon Doron, op. cit., The First Booke, p. 5. James’insistence on his lack of hypocrisy becomes immediately suspicious in the light of the above remarks.
32(2.4. 4-5). And Shakespeare William, Measure for Measure, op. cit., footnote, p. 54: “‘Heaven’ is clearly a substitution of ‘God’ […] There is also the suggestion of a sacrilegious communion.”
33Claudio – who may be seen as Angelo’s double in that they are both guilty of the same “crime,” of seduction – would then become the ghostly shadow of the living Angelo who was himself bound by contract to Mariana. See (3.1. 215).
34(2.4. 120-127).
35Note that, in his attempt to escape correction, Angelo again tries to put the blame on others (notably women, who he sees as tools of a wider political intrigue) during the final reckoning of the trial scene at the end of the play: “I do perceive/These poor informal women are no more/But instruments of some more mightier member/That sets them on,” (5.1. 233-237).
36This constant judgemental observation may be the “terror” that Vincentio was talking about, and shies away from, at the beginning of the play. See Anny Crunelle-Vanrigh’s comments on this point: “Le mot ‘spectacle’ superpose le judiciaire et le théâtral, parce l’un et l’autre sont affaire de regard. Les entrevues de la pièce se déroulent rarement hors de la présence d’un tiers spectateur,” Mesure pour Mesure, traduction nouvelle de Jean-Michel Déprats, op. cit., p. 170.
37(3.1. 98-102).
38Family ties would arguably be held responsible for the downfall of many of Shakespeare’s rulers including king Lear, about whom the eponymous play was written during the same period as Measure for Measure.
39“rules of virtuous and sociall living, and not to be snares to trap your good subjectes: and therefore the lawe must be interpreted according to the meaning, and not to the literall sense […] And as I said of Iustice, so I say of clemencie […] Nam in medio stat vitus,” James I, King of England, Basilikon Doron, op. cit., The Second Booke, p. 86.
40Shakespeare William, Measure for Measure, Alfred Harbage (ed.), introduction, p. 358.
41“[the play’s] title Measure for Measure, recalls Matthew vii, 1-2; a part of the Sermon on the Mount: ‘Judge not that ye be not judged. For with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judges; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.’ […] Isabella’s plea for Claudio earlier in the play was based on the old antithesis of justice and mercy,” ibid., introduction, p. 357-358.
42(5.1. 407-409).
43“And liberty plucks Justice by the nose,/The baby beats the nurse, and quite athwart/Goes all decorum,” (1.3. 28-31).
44(3.2. 89-95).
45(3.2. 136). J. W. Lever notes that this quote is one of the many examples of the recurrent punning on measuring, weights and balances in the play. Shakespeare William, Measure for Measure, op. cit., footnote, p. 88.
46The Duke is playing at being a friar or “usurp [ing] the beggary he was never born to” and Angelo at being the Duke. Note too that Angelo is named whilst Vincentio is not, so reinforcing the linguistic distancing as far as the Duke is concerned.
47Shakespeare William, Measure for Measure, Alfred Harbage (ed.), op. cit., introduction, p. 356.
48“Angelo’s shock at the discovery of something in himself that he is powerless to resist, Isabella’s distress at the dilemma in which she finds herself and, above all, Claudio’s sudden discovery of the horror of death and his pitiful wish to cling to life,” ibid., p. 357.
49Ibid., p. 357.
50Ibid., p. 357.
51Shakespeare William, Measure for Measure, J. W. Lever (ed.), op. cit., introduction, p. xciv-xcv. Even if it has been argued here that the Duke’s language does betray awareness of his own authoritative failings. For an alternative interpretation from Lever’s, see Rolf Soellner’s less categorical comments on the Duke’s possible attainment of some self-knowledge in the play. They are also emblematic of the fact that the concept may not be a particularly comfortable one to live with: “At the end, […] even the Duke may have learned something about himself, although it is not what he set out to learn,” Soellner Rolf, Shakespeare’s Patterns of self-Knowledge, Ohio, Ohio State University Press, 1972, p. 217.
52Shakespeare William, Measure for Measure, J. W. Lever (ed.), op. cit., introduction, p. xcvii-xcviii.
53“Vincentio’s Vienna is not the organic medieval-Renaissance state […] but resembles the kind of state as Charron saw as the norm ‘wholly composed of lies, colored, counterfeit, and dangerous’,” Soellner Rolf, Shakespeare’s Patterns of Self-Knowledge, op. cit., p. 229.
54The Tempest (5.1. 182). Miranda’s words come at the end of a play about a civilisation that Northrop Frye qualifies as a “dissolving society,” much like that of Vienna, at the beginning of the action. However, and in the same way that Vincentio’s (or rather Shakespeare’s) corrective artistry covers up the tragedy at the close of Measure for Measure, Prospero’s island also undergoes transformation and is ultimately “permeated by the virtues of tolerance and forgiveness” too, Shakespeare William, The Tempest, Alfred Harbage (ed.), London, Penguin books Ltd, (The Complete Pelican Shakespeare), “The Comedies and the Romances,” 1981, introduction (by Northrop Frye), p. 503-504.
55Soellner Rolf, Shakespeare’s Patterns of Self-Knowledge, op. cit., p. 227.
56Machiavelli Niccolò, The Prince, translated by William K. Marriott, Falkirk, Harper Press, “Collins Classics,” 2011, introduction, p. vi.
57Ibid., p. 7.
58“When the Duke had possessed himself of Romagna, finding it […] full of robberies, riots, and all manner of insolencies […] he thought it necessary to provide them a good governor, […] with absolute power, though he was a cruel and passionate man. […] Afterwards, the Duke, apprehending so large a power might grow odious to the people, he erected a court of judicature in the middle of the province, […] And because he discovered that his past severity had created him many enemies, to remove that ill opinion, and recover the affections of the people, he had a mind to show that, if cruelty had been exercised, it proceeded not from him but from the arrogance of his minister; and for their further confirmation, he caused the said governor to be apprehended, and his head chopped off one morning in the marketplace, […] This Duke was a man of that magnanimity and prudence, understood so well which way men where to be wheedled, or destroyed, and such were the foundations that he had laid in a short time,” ibid., p. 31-33.
59Ibid., introduction, p. vii. The emphasis is the author’s.
60Ibid., introduction, p. vii.
61Ibid., p. 70.
62The multiple marriages at the end of the action and Juliet’s pregnancy are the symbolic representations of this in the play.
Auteur
-
Stéphanie Mercier
Agrégée d’anglais et de double nationalité française et britannique. Elle contribue régulièrement à L’Oeil du Spectateur, le supplément des Cahiers Shakespeare en Devenir de l’université de Poitiers, dont le compte rendu « “Ein tragiches Dilemma ?” Thomas Ostermeier’s production of Maß für Maß (William Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure) at the TNO from the 4th to the 14th April 2012 » [http://shakespeare.edel.univ-poitiers.fr/index.php?id=589]. Elle a participé au congrès SAES, sur « la transparence »/« transparency », à l’université de Limoges, en mai, 2012 à l’occasion duquel elle a écrit « Leontes through the Looking Glass, Theatrical Transparency in Shakespeare’s The Winter’s Tale » (à paraître, Cahiers Shakespeare en Devenir, 2013) et elle est en train d’écrire une présentation pour la conférence « On Page and Stage : Shakespeare, 1590-1890 », qui aura lieu en décembre 2012 à l’UCNW, pays de Galles, et dont le titre est « Simon Forman’s Review of Shakespeare’s The Winter’s Tale : First Time Stage to Page ». Elle prépare actuellement une thèse sur « La dramaturgie de l’hybride dans les tragi-comédies shakespeariennes », à l’université de Poitiers, sous la direction de Pascale Drouet, et est rattachée au laboratoire « FoReLL : Formes et Représentations en Linguistique et Littérature ».
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Creative Commons - Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Lectures de Love's Labour's Lost
De William Shakespeare
Delphine Lemonnier-Texier et Guillaume Winter (dir.)
2014
Figures de l'instabilité dans l'œuvre de William Makepeace Thackeray (1811-1863)
Étude stylistique
Jacqueline Fromonot
2021
Le jardin et ses mythes aux États-Unis et en Grande-Bretagne
Emmanuel Vernadakis, Jean-Michel Yvard et Gelareh Yvard-Djahansouz (dir.)
2017
